East Dulwich (Mobile) Forum

The Coal Line is under threat from developers. Peckham Coal Line needs your help by Saturday

Dear Peckham Coal Line supporters old and new,

Its been brilliant meeting so many of you at the local summer fairs and events over the last couple of weeks and months. The Peckham Coal Line will only happen thanks to our collective enthusiasm and vision to push the project forward and now you're needed more than ever.

Following a last minute planning discovery – The Peckham Coal Line needs your help by Saturday 15th July 2017.

Unfortunately we stumbled across a planning application late this evening for 39b Consort Road, SE15 2AA. This address is actually a large yard, which, if developed as proposed, would have a catastrophic effect on the future of the Peckham Coal Line.

Developers know we are working towards a park and are scrambling to develop the green spaces along the route before they are protected. Unfortunately ‘Bluecroft Property Development’ recently got hold of a key part of the route. On the site is a fantastic old Victorian stable block. There is a cobbled yard and potential access to some amazing double-height rail arches. The developer wants to knock down the Victorian warehouse and stable buildings and build across the yard and green spaces. This is a real tragedy – firstly the buildings should be listed because they are unique, beautiful and part of our shared heritage. Secondly it blocks off a vital part of the Peckham Coal Line route, making it near impossible for the two sides to join up – closing off the area to all of us and gating it for a few. Finally it is a really poor use of space which could instead be a fantastic opportunity to integrate the arches, old buildings and surrounding houses to make something for everyone.

Please find links and template letter here: [www.peckhamcoalline.org]

This happens ahead of the Community Launch of the crowdfunded feasibility study as part of the Peckham Festival in September.
Thanks again.
The Peckham Coal Line Team.
Nice idea but we need houses more.
> Following a last minute planning discovery

Asleep on the job?
None of these will be 'affordable', so it will do nothing to help homelessness or affordability.
edhistory Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------
> > Following a last minute planning discovery
>
> Asleep on the job?

That's a bit unfair. Unless you are personally a neighbour and see the physical application on a lamppost, there might be no way that you get to find out about an application. Southwark's online planning portal is utterly unreliable – I'm signed up to receive new or amended planning applications for one or two postcodes and it only alerts me to a fraction of them. Southwark show little interest in putting it right.
BrandNewGuy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------
> None of these will be 'affordable', so it will do
> nothing to help homelessness or affordability.

[www.investopedia.com]
WEll, that rather supports my asleep at the wheel comment.

I wonder why "they" did not submit an outline planning application at the outset. Southwark Council Planning should then have notified "them" of an overlapping application.

The Coal Line was unlikely to get planning permission because of lack of disabled access.
I thought the general consensus was that the Coal Line was a desirable project. Living in Rye Lane I think it would definitely enhance the area.

I objected anyway - just on the basis it's an attempt to sabotage the project.
> just on the basis it's an attempt to sabotage the project.

Is there any evidence to support this?
edhistory Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------
> > just on the basis it's an attempt to sabotage
> the project.
>
> Is there any evidence to support this?

The link at the top includes

"catastrophic effect"
"blocks off a vital part of the Peckham Coal Line route making it near impossible for the two sides to join up"
"shallow exercise in increasing the value of the land to put it out of the reach of all of us."

I haven't double checked any of whats in this link - but if it's wrong my objection will be ignored anyway smiling smiley.
So the answer is NO.

The developer has NOT attempted to sabotage the Coal Line.

The developer is pursuing a commercial opportunity.
El Presidente Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------
> BrandNewGuy Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > None of these will be 'affordable', so it will
> do
> > nothing to help homelessness or affordability.
>
> [www.investopedia.com]
> conomics3.asp

Nicely patronising. Thanks. Next time someone mentions the housing crisis to me, I'll just say, "Supply and demand." Conversation over.
edhistory Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------
> So the answer is NO.
>
> The developer has NOT attempted to sabotage the
> Coal Line.
>
> The developer is pursuing a commercial
> opportunity.

If the council investigate and agree with you, fair enough. I want to make sure they check.
El Presidente,

You should perhaps continue the conversation and possibly explaining that 'supply and demand' isn't currently solving the issue with housing.

What should be carefully understood as simple business economics rather than a conspiracy is that it is in the interest of landowners to restrict the supply of housing to maximise profit. This can be discussed at many different points in the supply chain and from the macro to micro scales of development.

But maybe you are right that discussion and understanding would be tiresome so maybe just win the conversation from the beginning with an ill informed sweeping statement.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was july 11, 12:49pm by JamesRixon.

Dear Edhistory,

Thanks for your input – you have been supportive in the past and we have supported your bookshop - that is what mutual collaborative constructive community is about? You know this is a project that is about bringing different groups together around a shared ambition and something that creates more public access and greater decision making for residents. We are trying to save a historic Victorian Stable block (shared heritage for future generations) from opportunistic demolition to make a terrace of low-density luxury house complex. The developers bought this site a few months ago secretly from D+R and it never went to open sale so we could not find out about it. This was well after the Coal Line was in the public domain. I have carefully looked around the whole site and could not find the two planning posters that are supposed to be displayed. We do check the planning register through due diligence not expecting anything and this is how we found this.

This whole project to create a new space in conjunction with neighbours and not in isolation – it is run solely by volunteers who do it because of the new connections and the opportunity to learn from each other that happens through the process of meeting different communities. It is very socially rewarding and it goes some way to better understanding what’s important to those engaging collectively. In joining in the conversation you are part of that as well – which though difficult is still valued.

We are absolutely not against housing on this site – in fact there is the opportunity to create something denser and much more affordable. The current scheme sits at 9 houses just below the threshold of 10 where they are obliged to provide affordable housing and they have to contribute less CIL. We simply want the developers to acknowledge that they have a duty to engage the neighbours. After all it is the neighbours that have made the neighbourhood they are profiting from.
JamesRixon Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------
> El Presidente,
>
> You should perhaps continue the conversation and
> possibly explaining that 'supply and demand' isn't
> currently solving the issue with housing.
>
> What should be carefully understood as simple
> business economics rather than a conspiracy is
> that it is in the interest of landowners to
> restrict the supply of housing to maximise profit.
> This can be discussed at many different points in
> the supply chain and from the macro to micro
> scales of development.
>
> But maybe you are right that discussion and
> understanding would be tiresome so maybe just win
> the conversation from the beginning with an ill
> informed sweeping statement.

OK, i'll give you the long version.

Prices are too high in London because supply exceeds demand. Increase supply, reduce price. Ends.
El Presidente Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------
> JamesRixon Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > El Presidente,
> >
> > You should perhaps continue the conversation
> and
> > possibly explaining that 'supply and demand'
> isn't
> > currently solving the issue with housing.
> >
> > What should be carefully understood as simple
> > business economics rather than a conspiracy is
> > that it is in the interest of landowners to
> > restrict the supply of housing to maximise
> profit.
> > This can be discussed at many different points
> in
> > the supply chain and from the macro to micro
> > scales of development.
> >
> > But maybe you are right that discussion and
> > understanding would be tiresome so maybe just
> win
> > the conversation from the beginning with an ill
> > informed sweeping statement.
>
> OK, i'll give you the long version.
>
> Prices are too high in London because supply
> exceeds demand. Increase supply, reduce price.
> Ends.

Loads of supply at Elephant Park then (edit: and looking at the Evening Standard property section there are loads of new homes entering the market). [www.homesandproperty.co.uk].

Not sure who is providing the demand.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit was july 11, 01:58pm by JohnL.

Anyway on thread smiling smiley All I'm looking for is the opportunity for the coal line project to be protected.

I's also like the Peckham Lido plan to actually happen too.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was july 11, 02:08pm by JohnL.

I'll be objecting to the new development. El Presidente - yes we do need more houses but I'm sure you will agree good city planning requires a fine balancing of numerous factors including narrow commercial interests, housing provision and the quality of the public realm. If we were to follow your simplistic "but we need more houses" argument we'd soon be concreting over Hyde Park and Hampstead Heath.
pg500 Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll be objecting to the new development. El
> Presidente - yes we do need more houses but I'm
> sure you will agree good city planning requires a
> fine balancing of numerous factors including
> narrow commercial interests, housing provision and
> the quality of the public realm. If we were to
> follow your simplistic "but we need more houses"
> argument we'd soon be concreting over Hyde Park
> and Hampstead Heath.

It's simple, not simplistic. And comparing some run down bit of old industrial land to Hyde Park is absurd.

As ever NIMBY's always find a reason to object. And then complain when they or their kids can't afford houses. You can't have your cake and eat it.
Anyway worth noting "TheCoalLine"s reply above.

They don't have an issue with building (they'd be happy with a denser development with social housing included by the sound of it) - I think they mainly wanted to be consulted so they knew how to proceed with their project.

Someone who isn't talking to you in this case has to be seen as a threat by them I'd think.

Edit:I went through a few of the documents associated with planning - and found no reference to the "Coal Line"



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was july 11, 03:45pm by JohnL.

This address is in The Lane Ward, so you need to contact the three Councillors for that ward about it. nick.dolezal@southwark.gov.uk
jasmine.ali@southwark.gov.uk [email protected]/* <![CDATA[ */!function(t,e,r,n,c,a,p){try{t=document.currentScript||function(){for(t=document.getElementsByTagName('script'),e=t.length;e--;)if(t[e].getAttribute('data-cfhash'))return t[e]}();if(t&&(c=t.previousSibling)){p=t.parentNode;if(a=c.getAttribute('data-cfemail')){for(e='',r='0x'+a.substr(0,2)|0,n=2;a.length-n;n+=2)e+='%'+('0'+('0x'+a.substr(n,2)^r).toString(16)).slice(-2);p.replaceChild(document.createTextNode(decodeURIComponent(e)),c)}p.removeChild(t)}}catch(u){}}()/* ]]> */

Renata
I'm a little confused as you put that postcode into the web it comes up as Gordon Road, and Gordon Road is in Nunhead Ward! If it is Consort Road not Gordon Road, The Lane councillors probably won't have been consulted on it due to the postcode. If the postcode is correct and it comes under Nunhead Ward, the Nunhead Councillors are the Councillors to contact. Fiona.colley@southwark.gov.uk
Sandra.rhule@southwark.gov.uk sunil.chopra@southwark.gov.uk

Renata
I was following the logic of your argument which does not seem to acknowledge the complexities of city planning and the need to balance a variety of factors. Many of London's finest green spaces, parks and squares would not have been created if communities, pressure groups and authorities always acquiesced to the developers' justification that "we need more houses". This applies equally to more modest public spaces that, although not on the scale of our best parks, still provide quiet enjoyment and help create interactions in the community.

Yes we need more houses to address excessive house prices(along with myriad other policy initiatives) but the Coal Line is a rare opportunity to create something of lasting value to the community and it would be a shame if this limited proposed development prevented that from happening.
JohnL Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------
> Anyway on thread smiling smiley All I'm looking for is the
> opportunity for the coal line project to be
> protected.
>
> I's also like the Peckham Lido plan to actually
> happen too.
- Never going to happen, way to expensive, had it not been filled in probably a different matter.
I was going to write about the clearances required for maintaining Victorian railway viaducts and contemporary Marlin Plans.

No need because this information is here:

Statutory consultee replies - NETWORK RAIL

[planbuild.southwark.gov.uk]

The site boundaries are here:

Plan - 2574-PA-100 - SITE PLAN

[planbuild.southwark.gov.uk]

Site location plan - 2574-OS

[planbuild.southwark.gov.uk]

Network Rail are watching the boundary issues.

So at the moment I'm a little puzzled about the reason(s) for this thread.
I'll be objecting as I believe the area needs vital community projects like this
LondonMix

Did you identify a threat to the Coal Line project from the planning application?
I've just asked the planners to ensure that whatever the final plans are for this scheme, that they safeguard access for the Coal Line as has been indicated in the AAP.

As long as planners are aware the community wants access safe guarded that's enough.

Also, the people behind the Coal Line are genuine community minded volunteers. They aren't posting this message on a lark. If you prioritise housing or don't like the community rail park that's fine but I don't think the people working very hard to bring a terrific project for the entire community are being disingenuous
No threat identified there. The planning documents indicate the site boundary with a red line.

What is this threat?

Original thread | JSON